No bike helmet idea a can of worms for Government

gooterz said :

Much like light rail is the solution to the problem we haven’t had yet. The government will have to make some more laws making that part of town more dense. (I think they’re rather dense enough).

Lol no, Light rail is simple about making money for our governments developer mates while ratepayers foot the bill. The only dense people are those who still vote Labor.

gooterz said :

It would be crazy when we bring in registration for bicycles. However its the only way the bicycle speed cameras will work.

Maybe they can also have a helmet cam?

By gum I think this government has it backwards.
The civic cycle loop was built because there are so many cyclists out there. So why only a few months later do we have to bring in a law to encourage more people to cycle? Did we over estimate the number of cyclists?

It seems our beloved leaders love us so much that they spend all day looking for solutions to us. However we’re rather slow at bringing the problems to go with them.

Much like light rail is the solution to the problem we haven’t had yet. The government will have to make some more laws making that part of town more dense. (I think they’re rather dense enough).

I think the problem is too many drivers rather than not enough cyclists. And you pay how much for parking?

It would be crazy when we bring in registration for bicycles. However its the only way the bicycle speed cameras will work.

Maybe they can also have a helmet cam?

By gum I think this government has it backwards.
The civic cycle loop was built because there are so many cyclists out there. So why only a few months later do we have to bring in a law to encourage more people to cycle? Did we over estimate the number of cyclists?

It seems our beloved leaders love us so much that they spend all day looking for solutions to us. However we’re rather slow at bringing the problems to go with them.

Much like light rail is the solution to the problem we haven’t had yet. The government will have to make some more laws making that part of town more dense. (I think they’re rather dense enough).

Here’s what its like in the Netherlands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M

I suggest doing a little googling on dutch helmet laws statistics injuries

Those for helmet laws may be a little surprised.

John Hargreaves said :

It is about time that the Government started questioning the science behind the compulsion to wear bike helmets.

It is true that the states brought in the laws in response to an inadequately argued demand from the feds to do so. Not to do so was to risk road funding.

It is true also, that helmets prevent soft tissue injuries such as gravel rash, broken noses and perhaps even the odd hair line fracture.

There is no clinical evidence that helmets have prevented major head trauma.

Moreover, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that helmets can contribute to Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI) which is the rotation of the head due to the increased mass of that head when it strikes the road.

Unlike motor bike helmets which are smooth and this smoothness mitigates the rotational opportunity f the head making contact a glancing one, bike helmets have gripping surfaces which contributes to DAI.

The result of DAI is the potential for quadriplegia and possible death. Indeed, a cyclist in Wanniassa died from DAI after falling off his bike. This was a coroner’s finding.

The standards applicable to bike helmets have been challenged and ignored. It is about time that this was remedied.

a Senate Sub Committee chaired by Senator Leyonhjelm (apologies for the spelling) heard scientific evidence at its hearing in Melbourne recently, advocating for the removal of the compulsion to wear the helmets. The evidence in support of the helmets law was from the medical profession with no empirical evidence – only the emotive “it will save kids’ lives” argument.

I’m pleased to see that baby steps are being taken to bring this issue to reality but am annoyed that it will take until mid next year before the actual law has any chance of being changed.

While I take your point about DAI, I shall continue to wear a helmet. One day it may be the only thing between my skull/brain and a bull bar, or the road. I’ll take a chance with DAI.

We have anecdotes of course, like my experience last year where a helmet took enough of the impact of a 28km/h collision with a concrete edge to leave me only a split eyebrow and temporary nerve damage in my forehead.
Collision energy increases exponentially with velocity. And when we’re talking about “low speed areas” like Garema place or Union Court, you’re mostly going to be rolling along at a fairly sedate speed (<15km/h) due to the multitude of people walking around. Yes, you might have a collision, but it’s not likely going to be one where you get shipped off unconscious in an ambulance.
I would think that if you’re riding at a low speed, there’s almost no use case for a bicycle helmet, or if the research is wrong and they’re actually super effective, why don’t we mandate people to wear a helmet while crossing the road, jogging, climbing a ladder, taking a shower and other everyday activities which involve a level of risk to the head. Think about that before you discount the inconvenience of having to carry a helmet with you at all day (or worrying about it getting nicked from the bike).
So yes, helmets are questionably effective anyway but beside that point cycling is low risk at low speeds and as such it is incongruent to require cyclists to wear helmets while similarly risky and regularly performed activities do not. And yes, carrying a helmet is a hassle which I think most people would agree when they think about the logistics of it. And so by that line of thought I assert that, Mandatory Helmet Laws are undermining the practical use case of cycling, which is part of the reason we have mostly recreational/fitness cycling here as opposed to in Europe where most people use bikes primarily for transportation and convenience over fun and fitness.

Thanks John H for reminding us that the compulsory helmets laws came in as a result of blackmail by the then federal government. The states were threatened with savage cutbacks in federal funding for roads unless they brought in compulsory cycle helmet laws, so all the state and territory governments had little choice but to cave in. There is a bright spot, however. Because the laws are state-based – not federal – each state can unilaterally scrap the laws if they wish. The NT has already partly done so, the precedent has been set, so if the ACT follows suit it would not be a case of the ACT being the only one in step. The compulsory cycle helmets laws are largely a dead letter anyway – rarely if ever enforced, openly flouted and with no evidence at all that they have contributed to the safety of bike riders. I am reminded of the slogan adopted by motorcyclists when compulsory helmet laws came in – Let those who ride decide.

pink little birdie said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

This entire argument for no helmets in low speed built up areas is seriously flawed. Wouldn’t most injuries on bicycles be caused by involvement with a vehicle? What areas have the highest concentration of cars and bicycles? You guessed it, the city. So where cyclists are by themselves, with little risk of collision [bike paths] they must wear helmets, but when they are in busy traffic areas like the ANU precinct, shopping complexes etc, they can get away without one? It just seems totally backward to me.

My only bike accident was on the bike path near Lake Ginninderra. This was despite riding on Ginninderra drive 2 -3 times a week for 3 years.
To be fair this law won’t effect me as I will continue to wear a helmet.

My only (bad) accident was on a quiet suburban street. A magpie stepped out in front of me. I braked and my brakes jammed up and over the handlebars I went. I was very sore and bruised. I’m not sure my helmet made a difference one way or another with that accident, but part of the bike struck me on the face, giving me a black eye (my one and only). Then I learnt what people had meant when they said a black eye runs.

wildturkeycanoe said :

This entire argument for no helmets in low speed built up areas is seriously flawed. Wouldn’t most injuries on bicycles be caused by involvement with a vehicle? What areas have the highest concentration of cars and bicycles? You guessed it, the city. So where cyclists are by themselves, with little risk of collision [bike paths] they must wear helmets, but when they are in busy traffic areas like the ANU precinct, shopping complexes etc, they can get away without one? It just seems totally backward to me.

My only bike accident was on the bike path near Lake Ginninderra. This was despite riding on Ginninderra drive 2 -3 times a week for 3 years.
To be fair this law won’t effect me as I will continue to wear a helmet.

It is about time that the Government started questioning the science behind the compulsion to wear bike helmets.

It is true that the states brought in the laws in response to an inadequately argued demand from the feds to do so. Not to do so was to risk road funding.

It is true also, that helmets prevent soft tissue injuries such as gravel rash, broken noses and perhaps even the odd hair line fracture.

There is no clinical evidence that helmets have prevented major head trauma.

Moreover, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that helmets can contribute to Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI) which is the rotation of the head due to the increased mass of that head when it strikes the road.

Unlike motor bike helmets which are smooth and this smoothness mitigates the rotational opportunity f the head making contact a glancing one, bike helmets have gripping surfaces which contributes to DAI.

The result of DAI is the potential for quadriplegia and possible death. Indeed, a cyclist in Wanniassa died from DAI after falling off his bike. This was a coroner’s finding.

The standards applicable to bike helmets have been challenged and ignored. It is about time that this was remedied.

a Senate Sub Committee chaired by Senator Leyonhjelm (apologies for the spelling) heard scientific evidence at its hearing in Melbourne recently, advocating for the removal of the compulsion to wear the helmets. The evidence in support of the helmets law was from the medical profession with no empirical evidence – only the emotive “it will save kids’ lives” argument.

I’m pleased to see that baby steps are being taken to bring this issue to reality but am annoyed that it will take until mid next year before the actual law has any chance of being changed.